Department for Transport

Ferries: Isle of Wight

Lord Berkeley: To ask Her Majesty’s Government who was responsible for the maintenance of the access ramps to the mezzanine deck on the St Helen ferry at Fishbourne, Isle of Wight, which collapsed on 18 July 2014 causing several injuries; whether any prosecutions are planned; and who would be responsible for any resulting prosecutions.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: Maintenance of all parts of a vessel is the responsibility of the ship owner or operator. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) examines significant breaches of safety and environmental aspects of Merchant Shipping legislation to determine what action is appropriate, which may include prosecution. The MCA is considering the circumstances of this particular incident in light of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch’s report.

Loran Navigator System

Earl Attlee: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much has been spent by them or Trinity House on the E-LORAN navigation system in each of the last 10 years.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: Expenditure on the eLoran navigation system by the Trinity House Research and Radio Navigation department for each of the last 10 years is as follows:  Exp (£000)Income (£000)Net Exp (£000)07/08194-188708/09256025609/10411-23417610/11606-14146611/12708-20050812/13573-20037313/14937-20073714/151,001-10090115/16576-100476Total5,263-1,3633,900 The vast majority of funding for Trinity House, and therefore the R&RNAV department, is met by the General Lighthouse Fund.

London Airports

Baroness Randerson: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will outline the decision-making process following their expected announcement on airport expansion in the South East, and at what stage in that process there will be a vote in Parliament.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: On 14 December 2015, the Government formally announced that it accepted the Airports Commission’s case for new runway capacity in the South East, as well as the Commission’s three shortlisted schemes. At the same time, it was also announced that the Department for Transport would undertake a package of further work which it anticipates will conclude over the summer. Alongside this, they would prepare an airports national policy statement as the framework for implementing decisions on airport capacity in line with the Planning Act 2008. National policy statements are designated in Parliament, at which point there can be a vote.

Night Flying

Baroness Randerson: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to consult on a replacement regime once the current night-flight regime comes to an end in October 2017, and when that consultation is expected to take place.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: The Government intends to consult on a new night flights regime later this year.

London Airports

Baroness Randerson: To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what basis they intend to decide how much public funding to put into the new transport infrastructure that would be required if there is to be expansion at Heathrow, and whether the same approach could apply to infrastructure improvements required if there is expansion at Gatwick.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: The Government’s 2013 Aviation Policy Framework makes clear that developers should pay the costs of upgrading or enhancing road, rail or other transport networks or services where there is a need to cope with additional passengers travelling to and from expanded or growing airports. Where the scheme has a wider range of beneficiaries, the Government will consider, along with other relevant stakeholders, the need for additional public funding on a case-by case basis. The Government’s approach would be the same for each of three short-listed options for airport expansion considered by the Airports Commission.

Road Traffic Offences: Mobile Phones

Lord Bradshaw: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of the proposed increase in penalty points and fines for those who use mobile phones while driving, in the light of the number of road fatalities in which that offence was a contributing factor.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: Evidence shows that hand-held mobile phone use by car drivers decreased after the legislation was introduced in 2003, and after the first increase in the penalty in 2007. However, I know that dangerous in-car mobile phone use remains a key concern amongst motorists. That is why the previous Government increased the level of fine in 2013 and this Government has brought forward a further package of measures to increase the current 3 penalty points to 4 and the fixed penalty notice to rise from £100 to £150.

Railways

Lord Bradshaw: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what responsibility they have for examining how the costs of heavy rail might be reduced.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: Government has a strong interest in reducing the net cost of the railway for the benefit of passengers, freight users and taxpayers, and this has been an important theme of the recent Hendy, Bowe and Shaw reviews. In respect of infrastructure costs, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has a remit to determine the efficient cost of provision by Network Rail in each five yearly rail control period, which helps to determine the cost of track access charges for Network Rail’s customers – passenger and freight train operators. ORR sets an efficiency target for Network Rail’s operations, maintenance and renewals. Any material increases in expenditure must be agreed with the Department for Transport. Separately, following the Bowe and Hendy reports, the Department has set in place new oversight arrangements to ensure best value is obtained from proposals to enhance the rail network, as reflected in the recently published Memorandum of Understanding between the Department and Network Rail. In respect of train operations, the Department seeks to achieve improved value for money through the way it lets and manages contracts for passenger train services.

Railways: Compensation

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the operation of passenger compensation schemes run by train operating companies.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: The Department for Transport expects Train Operating Companies (TOCs) to make sure that their customers are aware of their rights to claim compensation. The Office of Rail and Road’s (ORR) response to the Which? super-complaint into passenger compensation, published in March this year, included consideration of the operation of the TOC schemes. The Department is already working closely with the ORR and the Association of Train Operating Companies to bring about improvements to passenger compensation arrangements. The Department will respond to the ORR’s report into the Which? super-complaint in the summer of 2016.

Bats

Lord Marlesford: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures are used (1) to determine the cost-effectiveness of bat bridges before construction is undertaken, and (2) to determine the value of those constructed.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: All elements of road schemes are subject to appraisal in line with Treasury requirements and guidance. They are also subject to value management requirements throughout the project lifecycle. This does not include any specific measures on the cost-effectiveness of structures, such as bat bridges, as there is no accepted method for such quantatative evaluation. Instead a review is undertaken of the costs, qualitative benefits and other predicted impacts (including environmental) at key stages to ensure benefits are optimised and costs are challenged.

M25: A12

Lord Marlesford: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment the Highways Agency has made of the standard of cleanliness of the junction between the M25 motorway and the A12 trunk road.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), Highways England is responsible for litter clearance on all England’s motorways and a few selected A roads for specific operational reasons. Local authorities are responsible for litter on all local roads, including the vast majority A roads on the strategic road network. The M25 junction with the A12 trunk road (junction 28), is maintained by both Highways England and Transport for London. Transport for London is responsible for litter clearance of the A12 from junction 28 towards London and Brentwood Borough Council is responsible for Junction 28 towards Brentwood. A litter inspection of junction 28 was completed by Highways England on 21 April 2016 which identified ‘widespread distributions of litter with minor accumulations’ (Grade C under the EPA Code of Practice). This location was then cleared of litter on 26 April. The junction will continue to be regularly monitored and re-picked as the need arises.

Bats

Lord Marlesford: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what academic studies have been conducted into the financial case for bat bridges over roads, and what assessment they have made of the conclusions of those studies.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: Highways England are not aware of any studies conducted into the financial case for bat bridges. Work in 2015 undertaken by Leeds University, on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), did look at the effectiveness of bat bridges. Highways England have reviewed the study and met with Natural England and DEFRA to discuss the conclusions of the report. While the conclusions of the Leeds University work are based on limited sample size, the authors conclude that the effectiveness of crossing structures increases with their size, connectivity and similarity to natural features. They also conclude that wire bat bridges do not provide effective mitigation.

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Managers: Pay

Lord Mendelsohn: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Executive Remuneration Working Group’s conclusions, and whether they have any plans either by statutory means or by Ministerial engagement to ensure greater transparency in relation to executive pay, clearer alignment of shareholder, company and executive interests, more accountability on the part of remuneration committees and greater engagement with and control by shareholders working through company boards.

Lord Mendelsohn: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will be participating in the Investment Association’s roundtables on executive pay; and whether Minister or officials intend to communicate with the Investment Association in preparation of those roundtables.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: The Government welcomes the interim conclusions of the Executive Remuneration Working Group. They represent a valuable source of ideas for ensuring more effective engagement between investors and directors and ensuring that executive pay policies are tailored to the needs of individual businesses. We also welcome the Working Group’s plans to consult interested stakeholders on practical ways of improving the current approach to executive pay. Departmental officials will be engaging with the roundtables that are being planned.The Government made significant reforms to the governance of executive pay in 2013. Under these reforms, companies are required to put their pay policies to shareholders at least every three years. These policies have to include information on how each director will be paid and how that is linked to different levels of performance. This is subject to a binding vote. Companies also have to provide shareholders with an Annual Remuneration Report which reports the pay of each director in a single figure and again has to set out clearly how the actual payments relate to performance. Shareholders have an advisory vote on this report, but if they reject the report, the company must submit a revised pay policy to a binding vote at the next AGM.These reforms give shareholders effective powers to challenge excessive pay and hold boards to account on executive pay policies. There is strong evidence from the current AGM season that shareholders are willing to use these powers, particularly where levels of pay are out of line with performance.The Government has no current plans for further legislation or regulation, but is looking for firm evidence that companies are liaising effectively with shareholders and adjusting pay policies where there is shareholder dissatisfaction.

Managers: Pay

Lord Mendelsohn: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the FTSE share index of public companies trading at broadly the same levels as 1998 whilst executive pay over the same period has trebled.

Lord Mendelsohn: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they track executive pay; and whether they collect data on what percentage of Long Term Incentive Plans were changed for FTSE 100 companies when performance changed negatively.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: Executive pay has risen significantly since 1998 and the link between top pay and company performance has sometimes been weak. That is why the executive pay reforms brought in by the Government in 2013 included measures to clarify the links between pay and performance as well as giving shareholders a stronger say. Company remuneration policies (on which shareholders now have a binding vote at least every three years), for example, must include information on how directors’ pay is linked to different levels of performance. In addition, the Annual Remuneration Report, which sets out what directors have been paid in the past financial year, has to set out clearly how the actual payments made relate to performance.It is too soon to form firm conclusions about the impact of the 2013 reforms. Executive pay is typically set on a three year cycle and the reforms have not yet reached their third anniversary. However, there is growing evidence from the current AGM season that shareholders are prepared to use the new powers, particularly where pay is out of line with company performance.The Government does not track executive pay across the more than 1,000 companies subject to the Regulations. We do however work closely with independent researchers that regularly survey the level and structure of pay, such as Manifest, and with key stakeholders such as the Investment Association and the Financial Reporting Council to ensure that we have access to the evidence needed to keep executive pay under review.

Department for International Development

EU Aid

Viscount Waverley: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much funding the Department for International Development transferred to the EU over and above their fixed aid related contribution.

Baroness Verma: The UK makes fixed ODA contributions to the EU budget and the European Development Fund (EDF) each year. In addition to this funding, where DFID doesn’t have the expertise or resources to deliver a major programme itself, it will work locally with partners who can do this including the EU.As set out in DFID's 2015 Statistics on International Development publication, in addition to these fixed ODA contributions, DFID provided £20,378,000 to the EU in 2014 for two infrastructure programmes in Africa. These are both helping to promote trade within Africa and boost local economies, building markets that Britain can trade with which is firmly in our national interest.In both cases the EU is the best partner with the necessary capacity and technical expertise to carry out these large infrastructure programmes. Details of all such bilateral programmes are published on devtracker.

Bilateral Aid

Viscount Waverley: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether there is still a development case for bilateral aid for India and Turkey; and whether they have plans to end bilateral aid to those, and similar, countries.

Baroness Verma: The UK does not have a bilateral aid programme in Turkey. We help Turkey address the consequences of the Syria crisis and migration challenges as the country hosts the highest number of refugees in the world, by providing support to refugees in Turkey, jointly with international partners.The UK’s bilateral aid programme in India has changed with India’s development. A middle-income country and major trading partner, India is still home to one third of the world’s poorest people. The UK ceased its traditional aid programme to India in 2015, and our support now focuses on promoting inclusive economic development, both reducing poverty and strengthening UK trade and investment opportunities.

Ministry of Defence

Warships

Lord West of Spithead: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 25 April (HL7484), whether they still stand by the commitment, made by the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Defence during the launch of the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, to increase the number of ships in the Royal Navy.

Earl Howe: The 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review announced our intention to launch a concept study and then design and build a new class of lighter, flexible general purpose frigate so that by the 2030s we can further increase the total numbers of frigates and destroyers. We stand by this commitment and work has begun.

HM Treasury

London Stock Exchange: Deutsche Borse

Lord Myners: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to review the competition implications for central counterparty clearing of the proposed takeover of the London Stock Exchange by Deutsche Bourse.

Lord Myners: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether the consolidation of central clearing houses will lead to an increase in risk concentration.

Lord Myners: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether the new holding company to be created to give effect to the proposed takeover of the London Stock Exchange by Deutsche Bourse will have to make its whole capital available to support a default by one of the two central clearing houses it will control, and which of those two clearing houses will receive capital priority in the event of a simultaneous or proximate failure of them both.

Lord Myners: To ask Her Majesty’s Government which regulator will be responsible for overseeing the correlation algorithms used in cross margining positions held with LCH Clearnet and Euronext.

Lord O'Neill of Gatley: I refer the noble Lord to my written answer of 26 April (HL7583, HL7584, HL7585, and HL7586).

UK Membership of EU

Lord Green of Deddington: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the (1) EU GDP, and (2) UK GDP, per household in 2030 in each of the three scenarios in the HM Treasury analysis The long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives (Cm 9250) published on 18 April.

Lord O'Neill of Gatley: In ‘HM Treasury analysis: the long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives’ the central estimates for the annual loss of UK GDP under the 3 alternatives (relative to remaining in the EU) in 2030 are: 3.8% in the case of the EEA, 6.2% in the case of a negotiated bilateral agreement, and 7.5% in the WTO case. Expressed in 2015 terms that means a loss of GDP per household of £2,600 for the EEA case; £4,300 for the negotiated bilateral agreement case; and £5,200 for the WTO case. No estimate has been made of the impact on the EU GDP per household. This reflects a cautious approach, as, for example, the main estimates for the effect of leaving the EU do not take into account the negative economic impacts on the rest of the EU as a result of UK exit or the possible foregone benefits to the UK of future EU reform.

Department of Health

Clostridium

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the outcome, and (2) the cost effectiveness, of the use of faecal microbiota transplants in the treatment of recurrent clostridium difficile.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the rate of uptake by the NHS of faecal microbiota transplants in the treatment of recurrent clostridium difficile.

Lord Prior of Brampton: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has produced guidance on faecal microbiota transplant for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. NICE has recommended that the procedure is safe and effective for use in the National Health Service, but no assessment of its cost effectiveness has been made by NICE. Data on the uptake of faecal microbiota transplants in the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile by the NHS is not collected centrally.